Indian Army is truly secular, its officers and jawans make it so

When the Supreme Court dismissed former Army officer Samuel Kamalesan’s appeal against his discharge from the force for refusing to participate in religious ceremonies associated with his regiment on the grounds that this violated the monotheistic tenets of his Christian Protestant faith, it upheld the Delhi’s high court judgement that was delivered earlier in May this year bringing a case that first held the attention of his superiors in 2018 to a close.

Kamalesan’s plea rested on his argument that he be spared from entering the sanctorum of a temple or gurudwara where a puja was being conducted as this would impinge on his rights under Article 25 of the Constitution that offers all citizens the right to practice their faith. Did Kamalesan’s regimental duties amount to an infringement of the “essential” elements of his religious beliefs? That was the question the high court and SC considered and ruled that Kamalesan was in fact unfit to serve in the Army and he was unreasonable in his conduct.

No private exemptions

In his petition Kamalesan argued that a particular commandant marked him down for refusing to participate in the religious parades and events and that his assessments improved under other officers. He said he accompanied troops to the Mandir and Gurudwara for weekly religious parades and attended festivals such as Diwali, Navratri, Lohri, Gurpurab and Holi. He claimed he only sought exemption from entering the innermost part of the temple when the puja, havan or aarti were taking place.

This he did, the high court noted, “…not only as a sign of respect to his monotheistic Christian faith, but also as a sign of respect towards the sentiments of his troops so that his nonparticipation while in the inner shrine would not desecrate and offend their religious sentiments. He claims he would nonetheless remain present with his fellow troops in the temple courtyard, after duly taking off his shoes and belt, with clean hands, with a turban on when necessary, etc., from where he could view the rituals in the inner shrine.”

The Army, however, does not offer officers and men the option of carving out private exceptions. The Army said despite counselling by senior officers and a learned Pastor Kamalesan did not attend regimental parades. The Army further noted that regimental war cries are based on devotional practices linked to particular deities. “The respondent (Army)  maintains this is an essential professional responsibility and military duty of the petitioner and not a religious obligation,” the high court noted. Kamalesan contended that the religious place in question is not a “sarv dharm sthal (all-religion place)” but he missed the pointed that the fact that troops of all denominations attended these parades was in fact evidence of “sarv dharm.”

Regimental War Cries

The point about war cries is more than merely ceremonial. Every jawan and officer of a regiment is committed to the war cry irrespective of their faith and caste. This is an expression of complete solidarity with each other and an identification with the regimental goal and honour. The Army’s response to Kamalesan’s petition identifies “regimental tarteeb” that can mean an orderly or disciplined process but needs to be seen in its wider context as embracing customs and tradition. The Gorkha regiment war cry of “Jai Mahakali, Ayo Gorkhali,” the Maratha Light Infantry’s “Chhhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj ki jai”, Naga Regiment’s “Jai Durga Naga,” Bihar Regiment’s “Jai Bajrangbali,” Kumaon Regiment’s “Kalika Mata ki Jai,” Garhwal Rifles’ “Badri Vishal Lal ki Jai,” Punjab Regiment’s “Bol Jwala Maa ki Jai,” Sikh Regiment’s “Bol So Nihal, Sat Sri Akal,” and Rajputana Rifles’s “Raja Ramchandra ki Jai” are all religious in inception. Yet, every member of these regiments unhesitatingly shouts the war cry in unison with all other comrades in arms.

Delhi high court duly deliberated the point and concluded, “While Regiments in our Armed Forces may historically bear names associated with religion or region, this does not undermine the secular ethos of the institution, or of personnel who are posted in these regiments. There are also War Cries which, to an outsider, may sound religious in nature, however, they serve a purely motivational function, intended to foster solidarity and unity amongst the troops.” The court as well as the SC recognised that being part of the religious customs of his troops is an essential aspect of an officer’s duty and this enhances the Army as a “secular” organisation rather than detracting from it. At no point is insulting or disrespecting a faith sanctioned.

On the other hand, the unique nature of the armed forces and their duties meant that the Constitution does empower Parliament to consider the extent to his fundamental rights apply to men and women in uniform. In 2016, the SC ruled that Muslim personnel in the air force cannot keep a beard as this militates against service regulations providing uniformity and discipline in the ranks. It is equally evident that Sikhs can keep a turban and a “kada” while a beard is not deemed to be an essential part of a Muslim’s faith. In fact, the high court does refer to the Indian Air Force (IAF) regulation on facial hair which was clarified by the Air Headquarters in 1980.

An officer’s religion

There are number of instances where non-Muslim officers participated in offering Namaz and Muslim officers and their spouses performed havan and puja without hesitation. Their actions bonded them with the troops and set an example of true secularism rather than the politicised version that emphasises separateness and religious prejudice. This embrace of religion, custom and tradition sets the Indian armed forces apart from its counterpart in Pakistan where the army chief recently invoked the two-nation theory and exhorted citizens not to forget that Hindus and Muslims are different in all respects. It is astounding to consider both armies were part of the same British Indian Army at one point in time.

Kamalesan paid a heavy price for his obduracy. He was passed over several times for the young officers course and could, in different circumstances, been a Major or a Lt Colonel by now. He was not selected for overseas peace keeping operations his unit participated in. Finally, he was cashiered without pension or rank. If he had chosen a wiser course of action he could have looked forward to a fulfilling career and retirement benefits or, in the event of his demise while serving the nation, his parents or wife and children would be assured of a pension and a life of dignity.